Bradford v. State, 102 So. 3d 312

Bradford was convicted in Bolivar County Circuit Court of conspiracy to commit arson and attempted arson; sentenced to five years (three to serve, two suspended on probation) for conspiracy and two years for attempted arson, to run consecutively.
The State’s case rested on accomplice Taylor’s testimony that Bradford paid him to burn Curt’s vehicle, plus corroborating testimony from Samantha, Thomas, and Ward and video of the fire.
Curt’s surveillance video showed a man starting a fire near her carport; the officer identified Taylor as the arsonist and Bradford was linked to the plan.
Taylor testified Bradford solicited the arson, showed him the car’s location, and paid him; Bradford bailed Taylor out after arrest.
Bradford appealed—challenging sufficiency/weight of the evidence and the court’s denial of Instruction D-1 on witness credibility; the verdict was affirmed.
Bradford did not testify and offered no defense witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legal sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy to commit arson.	Bradford argues the evidence is legally insufficient.	State contends the evidence is legally sufficient.	Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed.
Denial of Instruction D-1 on weight and credibility of witnesses.	Bradford argues D-1 was necessary to properly assess credibility.	State contends other instructions adequately instructed the jury.	Instruction adequate; no reversible error.

Dampeer v. State, 989 So.2d 462 (Miss.Ct.App.2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Tran v. State, 785 So.2d 1112 (Miss.Ct.App.2001) (standard for reviewing directed verdict/JNOV)
McClain v. State, 625 So.2d 774 (Miss.1993) (reliability of circumstantial evidence in sufficiency review)
Ellis v. State, 778 So.2d 114 (Miss.2000) (sufficiency standard—favors prosecution when evidence supports verdict)
Seeling v. State, 844 So.2d 489 (Miss.2003) (standard for corroboration in accomplice testimony)